Citation NR: 9621846
Decision Date: 08/02/96 Archive Date: 08/15/96
DOCKET NO. 94-23 721 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago,
Illinois
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for left knee
disability.
2. Entitlement to special monthly compensation for loss of
use of a creative organ.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Milo H. Hawley, Counsel
REMAND
The veteran had active service from August 1974 to July 1984.
This matter comes before the Board of Veteransí Appeals
(Board) on appeal from May 1989 and April 1991 decisions by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Chicago, Illinois, which denied service connection for
left knee disability and granted service connection for
impotence due to diabetes, but denied a compensable
evaluation for the impotency because of a functioning penile
implant, respectively.
Service medical records reflect that the veteran had
complaints with respect to his left knee in September and
October 1982. Assessments included sprain of the left knee.
The report of an October 1984 VA examination reflects the
veteranís complaints of recurring left knee problems. The
diagnoses do not include a reference to the left knee. VA
outpatient clinical records reflect that the veteran had
surgery on his left knee in November 1987 and October 1988,
but summaries with respect to these hospitalizations do not
appear to be a part of the record on appeal. These surgeries
apparently occurred at the Danville VA Medical Center.
A VA hospital discharge summary, relating to a period of
hospitalization in late April and early May 1990, reflects
that the veteran underwent the placement of a penile
prosthesis. Although the report of a December 1990 VA
examination indicates that the veteranís penile implant was
functioning well for him, a March 1991 VA hospital discharge
summary indicates that the veteranís penile prosthesis was
replaced because it had ceased to function approximately two
weeks before. The record does not indicate that the veteran
has been afforded an examination with respect to the replaced
prosthesis subsequent to the March 1991 hospitalization.
In light of the above, the Board believes that additional
development is required prior to further appellate review.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following:
1. The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he provide the names,
addresses and approximate dates of
treatment for all VA and non-VA health
care providers who have treated him for
his left knee disability since service
and who have treated him for his
impotency or penile prosthesis since
1990. With any necessary authorization
from the veteran, the RO should attempt
to obtain copies of pertinent treatment
records identified by the veteran, in
addition to records relating to the
hospitalizations and surgeries,
apparently at the VA Medical Center in
Danville, with respect to the veteranís
left knee in November 1987 and October
1988, which are not currently of record.
2. Then, the RO should arrange for VA
orthopedic and genitourinary examinations
by board-certified specialists, if
available, to determine the nature and
extent of any left knee disability and
impotency, as well as the functioning of
the penile prosthesis. All indicated
studies should be performed. The
veteranís claims file must be made
available to the examiners prior to the
examinations. After reviewing the claims
file, the orthopedic examiner should
provide an opinion, with complete
rationale, as to the etiology of any
identified left knee disability,
including whether it is at least as
likely as not that there is a
relationship between any current
disability and the veteranís complaints
during service. The genitourinary
examiner should set forth all findings in
detail, including the veteranís erectile
power with and without the penile
prosthesis, as well as the veteranís
ability to procreate both with and
without the penile prosthesis. A
complete rationale should be given for
all opinions and conclusions expressed.
3. Then, in light of the additional
evidence obtained pursuant to the
requested development, the RO should
readjudicate the issues on appeal.
If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the
veteranís satisfaction or if a timely notice of disagreement
is received with respect to any other matter, both the
veteran and his representative should be provided a
supplemental statement of the case on all issues in appellate
status and be given an opportunity to respond.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for
further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In
taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either
legal or factual, as to the ultimate outcome warranted. No
action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise
notified.
ROBERT E. SULLIVAN
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, ß 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. ß 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1995), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is
in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute
a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. ß 20.1100(b) (1995).
- 2 -